Breaking News: Post Office Scandal

[Fergie 307]

Watching the testimony from the Post Office investigator at the inquiry today, a common theme became apparent - the accused sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses being discussed today being given the option of lesser penalties (ie avoiding jail) provided they signed affidavits saying the cash shortfall 'errors' were their fault and not the Horizon system's.

Imagine for a moment yourself, a law-abiding citizen and a pillar of society, being bullied into signing a document absolving the system that put you in the position you found yourself. The system that stole tens of thousands of pounds from you that you had to give the Post Office to make good the system's fictional shortfall.

It's like something out of a Kafka novel. Just appalling.

My understanding is that one of the biggest issues with all the various court cases was that the prosecution did not disclose relevant material to the defendants. The fact that issues had been raised with the system was clearly highly relevant, and so should have formed part of this discolsure, but was simply ignored. Had these issues been disclosed then it would have cast considerable doubt on the PO position that the software was infallible.

 

[Cozzer]

Listening to Radio 4 earlier today, it was stated that the Horizon system is still being used in post offices across the country - how nervous would you be, pressing that button?! - and is still prone to giving the "odd result".

 

[Glitch]

My understanding is that one of the biggest issues with all the various court cases was that the prosecution did not disclose relevant material to the defendants. The fact that issues had been raised with the system was clearly highly relevant, and so should have formed part of this discolsure, but was simply ignored. Had these issues been disclosed then it would have cast considerable doubt on the PO position that the software was infallible.

A problem with the PO being able to prosecute their own cases.

Had they gone through CPS I suspect the threshold for evidence would be higher and most cases thrown out.
Starmer on TV this morning said they only dealt with three cases and have yet to find out which ones they are.

Only just got around to bingeing on the drama series tonight.
As a retired banking IT manager I find it extremely disturbing.

 

[Jake]

Assuming the above, I doubt very much (although no lawyer) that sub-postmasters have a claim against Fujitsu with whom they have no contractual relationship in respect of actions by the Post Office over which Fujitsu have no control.

Fujitsu seem to have known and actively tried to hide the problems - they will not have contractual liability to sub-postmasters, but there is an arguable case they had a duty of care to sub-postmasters to avoid negligently (never mind deliberately) harming them (especially once aware of the problems and their impact) and hence tortious liability. Also potential criminal liability. It is at least possible this is in the territory of deliberately and knowingly harming people and being complicit in perverting the course of justice, the lack of a contract will not save them then if that is established.

 

[RogerS]

Fujitsu was apparently responsible for the NHS systems fiasco as well.

No..I think you will find that Tony Blair was.

What amazed me about the whole thing was the almost total absence of whistle blowers. There must have been hundreds/thousands who knew very well what was going on.
And the complete incompetence of the legal process. They worked solely for their client and were prepared to cooperate in lies and cover-ups, but worst of all showed zero concern about the injustice and sufferings of the victims.
Draws into question the independence of the judiciary - they were working "for the few not the many" and making huge profits from "the many" - including the tax payer.
"Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects. Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office."
End of an era? Was always hot air to start with IMHO
Where was the head of the CPS when all this was going on?

Oh FFS, Jacob. Never one to miss an opportuity to thump your well-worn beaten-to-death soapbox. Little dig at Keir, again? And as for the tripe about "...Draws into question the independence of the judiciary". Does that mean that you disagree with the law ?

 

[RogerS]

...

Currently it looks more like damage limitation by the tory party

Oh please... you are beginning to sound like Jacob. Soapbox time...woo hoo. I have no love anymore for the Tory party but seriously ...?

 

[RogerS]

And others. The buck goes upwards - to CEO Vennels primarily, and to DPP Rodney. Many more down the chain of command.
1
“As DPP, Keir was responsible for all criminal prosecutions in England and Wales."
2
"....the largest miscarriage of justice in British history,"

3 years later before we hear the first few squeaks Sir Keir's selective responsibility He doesn't do empathy very well, or indignation, or anything for that matter!
He has brought the judiciary into disrepute and finally blown the myth of the "independence of judiciary"

Blah...blah..blah...same old, same old, Jacob. Mastered that double-flush yet ?

 

[TRITON]

Oh please... you are beginning to sound like Jacob. Soapbox time...woo hoo. I have no love anymore for the Tory party but seriously ...?

Last time I looked they were the party in power, and since 2010. But were it labour, and they also failed in their duty, I'd be just as critical with them.
Both labour and the conservatives have failed to look into this, but as above, right now its the tories who have failed.

So stop putting everything down to a them&us, left and right basis, that boollocks seriously pisses me off.
Maybe you should try to be a bit less partisan

 

[Phil Pascoe]

But were it labour ...

It started under Labour.

 

[Jacob]

It seems to be apolitical. Though one would expect Labour to be most concerned "for the many not the few" especially with a human rights lawyer and ex DPP as leader.
Looks like a missed opportunity to give the tories a kicking.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Fujitsu seem to have known and actively tried to hide the problems - they will not have contractual liability to sub-postmasters, but there is an arguable case they had a duty of care to sub-postmasters to avoid negligently (never mind deliberately) harming them (especially once aware of the problems and their impact) and hence tortious liability. Also potential criminal liability. It is at least possible this is in the territory of deliberately and knowingly harming people and being complicit in perverting the course of justice, the lack of a contract will not save them then if that is established.

It doesn’t look good that Fujitsu executives are reported to have asked for immunity from prosecution before appearing at the public enquiry.

Increasingly I feel the phrase “you couldn’t make this up” is appropriate.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I caught only a moment of this so I don't know whether it's a joke, a suggestion or an actual plan, but a fascinating idea nevertheless - a "guilty" sub postmaster/mistress to stand against Ed Davey in the next election.

 

[Steve Thomas]

Do you like court room dramas? Best is the Post Office Enquiry, it's live and recorded. View day 103 (this week).it's gripping (not joking it's great) CE GT, the barristers are clever, post office security workers squirming.

 

[Glitch]

It's going to be interesting to see how they bring criminal charges against those who knew the prosecutions were unfounded.

There must be various PO staff who could be charged with PCOJ

Maybe any Fujitsu staff who declared the system was 'robust'.

There's probably a breach of contract between PO and Fujitsu but PO may have known and accepted faults.

Super User access to systems to modify accounts and data may also have been agreed but whoever said to prosecutors or in court it couldn't be done is also PCOJ.

They'll all be blaming each other and claiming they were lied to. Some evidence is almost certain to be destroyed.

Bonuses must be clawed back from anyone who knew the truth.

 

[Mikebart]

I watched Fridays inquiry or part of it, lawyers explaining how email systems have changed over the years, lack of backups, and how much time and cost would be incurred in trying to trace email documents that may or may not be of relevance.

 

[Furniture Restorer]

Very hard to fight a legal case against a massive organisation with 'unlimited resources'. Plus they had all the evidence under their control.

Maybe the prosecutors knew the evidence for theft was flimsy hence they were quick to offer a lighter sentence for a guilty plea to false accounting.

Pretty much strongarmed into pleading guilty for a crime you didn't commit.
Cant begin to imagine the impact that has on an individual in a trusted position.

There is no valid reason why the police couldn't have put this to bed and gone after the real culprit (i.e. the software) had their investigation not been compromised in some way.

Even if this supposed organised gang of postmasters were the most frugal and penny-pinching bunch of ne'er-do-wells in history you'd expect to see a few trinkets or extravagances from their 'crimes.' There were no Ferraris found parked in front of the post offices. No villas in Spain. They didn't even get the missus a ****-job. In fact, quite a few of the victims made up the deficit from their own savings they were so scrupulous. It's like getting robbed by the Amish.

 

[Glitch]

There is no valid reason why the police couldn't have put this to bed and gone after the real culprit (i.e. the software) had their investigation not been compromised in some way.

Even if this supposed organised gang of postmasters were the most frugal and penny-pinching bunch of ne'er-do-wells in history you'd expect to see a few trinkets or extravagances from their 'crimes.' There were no Ferraris found parked in front of the post offices. No villas in Spain. They didn't even get the missus a ****-job. In fact, quite a few of the victims made up the deficit from their own savings they were so scrupulous. It's like getting robbed by the Amish.

Police don't decide who to prosecute.
I've never come across the police going after software companies for supplying crap software.
Had the CPS been involved I suspect many cases would have been thrown out.

What would the charge Fujitsu with?
Only PCOJ if they have lied about known software bugs and remote access.

There's possibly a breach of contract between Fujitsu and PO but I reckon PO accepted the duff product. More millions to be creamed off by lawyers if they dispute it in court.

I'd be very surprised but pleased if the right people end up with criminal charges.

I suspect any sub-postmaster sentences will be quashed, compensation paid and some PO exec bonuses clawed back. Maybe some sackings to to feed some Christians to the lions.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Fujitsu seem to have known and actively tried to hide the problems - they will not have contractual liability to sub-postmasters, but there is an arguable case they had a duty of care to sub-postmasters to avoid negligently (never mind deliberately) harming them (especially once aware of the problems and their impact) and hence tortious liability. Also potential criminal liability. It is at least possible this is in the territory of deliberately and knowingly harming people and being complicit in perverting the course of justice, the lack of a contract will not save them then if that is established.

Perverting the course of justice may be a catch all charge for all those in the Post Office or Fujitsu aware of the failings of the Horizon system. I assume the scale of the offence depends on whether:

• those who knew or had a reasonable suspicion, but were unconnected to the prosecutions,
• those who investigated claims and allowed prosecution to follow in the knowledge that the evidence could be flawed
• those who under oath testified that the Horizon system was robust, knowing or having strong suspicions that it was untrue
• directors and senior managers who ultimately have responsibility for prosecutions who knowingly allowed them to go forward on evidence that was unreliable

 

[selectortone]

There is no valid reason why the police couldn't have put this to bed and gone after the real culprit (i.e. the software) had their investigation not been compromised in some way.

The police weren't involved at all (apart from a handful of cases). The Post Office investigated these cases with their own investigation teams and brought the accused to court with their own prosecution lawyers via private prosecutions. They completely circumvented the police and the DPP.

Top lawyer urges MPs to review private prosecutions after Post Office scandal

 

[TRITON]

It started under Labour.

Indeed correct Phil, I'm glad you're on the ball.

But pray tell, in the last 14 years, who would they look to to sort this problem out. The party in power, or the party not in power ?.